Belichick purposely allowed DEN to run on us Sunday night

[Froob]

Its not giving them extra yardage, its devising a game plan that takes away the pass and does the best it can against the run.
We played a 2-4 nickel all day with double high safeties. Most of the time one of the 6 in the box was covering the slot receiver.
We didn't 'allow them to run' we chose a scheme that is weak vs the run, but took away the pass.

Okay that's what I thought. Makes more sense.

 

[SalemPats]

BB's gameplan defeated Manning

I was talking to my dad and was saying that i was worried that we couldn't stop the Broncos offense. I was expecting them start off with WR screens to Thomas or Welker. Try and force us to to put our safeties up on the outside and then Manning would utilize the middle of the field with Welker and Tamme in mismatches against our LBs or nickel coverage. But wow, BB was prepared they had nothing on screens, he knew what Manning was going to do. He got this LB corps and safeties prepared. A great job by the defensive coaching staff.

 

[Tunescribe]

Hard to believe but you nailed the exact opposite of what happened and the correct conclusions to draw.

400 yards over almost 5 quarters....for the supposed most prolific offense in the entire history of everything means squat. The Broncos had exactly two real scoring drives the entire game.

Brady was part of the fumble parade. Overcoming the condition you help create doesn't allow for full credit. That's the only reason this game wasn't a real beat down.

A less than stellar performance by the defense would never have allowed a comeback....the combination of getting turnovers and stops had to be essentially perfect.

Fair enough, but we're both right -- just looking at the coin from different sides. Turnovers by both teams skewed things.

 

[Ring 6]

Agreed. The point was making the run Denver's most attractive option by targeting personnel packages to limit their passing attack. The Broncos still scored enough points to win while amassing more than 400 yards offense, so I wouldn't give the Pats defense too much credit. Brady and the wind were the difference makers.

They only scored enough points to win due to turnovers.
Eliminate the D TD and the TD that started at the +8 and they scored 17 points.

 

[FCB02062]

It should be noted that in reviewing the game film, the Patriots refused to change their approach to try and combat the run. On 90/90 plays including overtime, Belichick chose to continue to stay in a nickle defense, at one time even substituting Hightower out for Dane Fletcher making our run defense even worse. As we know, this is not the first time that we've seen this.

In the book by David Halberstam called "Education of a coach," the topic is brought up regarding Belichick's defensive gameplan in SB 25 vs the Buffalo Bills and RB Thurman Thomas. As we all know, that NYG team had a great defensive line that prided themselves in stopping the run, and they reportedly wanted no part of Belichick's gameplan to allow Thurman Thomas to run. He literally had to talk them into it.

As they prepared for their final gameplan meeting, Belichick reiterated his plan to allow Thomas to run for over 100+ yards, telling players like Carl Banks, Lawrence Taylor etc to allow him to wiggle free for an extra couple of yards from time to time; noting that it would help to limit the throws from Jim Kelly and the high powered BUF offense. At one point the defensive players openly complained and moaned about this questionable gameplan, and Belichick asked them "who here wants to win the MVP?" As several hands shot up, he gave them a serious look and stated "then let Thomas run."

The result spoke for itself as Thomas ran for 135 yards, but the heavily favored and high powered Bills lost the game on a 46 yard FG attempt.

Does anyone feel that the same exact thing happened on Sunday night? In other words, judging by the fact that we stayed in nickle on 90/90 plays, we didn't attempt to try and do anything at all about the fact that they were gouging us vs the run. I honestly believe that we'd have attempted to combat this if it weren't part of the gameplan, and we weren't up against Peyton Manning and a very high powered offense.

The concern I'd have is that this isn't likely to work 2x this year, and if we meet them in the playoffs, we'll have to hope that our offense can match them blow for blow against that high powered attack of weapons.

The bottom line is that we once again are witnessing a very, very good span of coaching from arguably the greatest coach to ever exist. As stated in my signature on the weekend prior to week #1, this has the potential to be his greatest coaching season ever when we consider everything that happened in the off-season, and that was the injuries, controversial calls, etc.

What position do you play?

 

[everlong]

Brady was part of the fumble parade. Overcoming the condition you help create doesn't allow for full credit. That's the only reason this game wasn't a real beat down.

It's hard to fault any quarterback on a blindside strip sack that comes that quickly. Really that's on Nate Solder.

 

[patchick]

Its not giving them extra yardage, its devising a game plan that takes away the pass and does the best it can against the run.

Andy, if you look back to the original post about the Giants/Bills game, it actually WAS about giving them extra yardage:

Belichick reiterated his plan to allow Thomas to run for over 100+ yards, telling players like Carl Banks, Lawrence Taylor etc to allow him to wiggle free for an extra couple of yards from time to time; noting that it would help to limit the throws from Jim Kelly and the high powered BUF offense.

That sounds to me like a nifty little con game where you let the mark win just enough to keep him playing. (Note that I'm not saying this Sunday's game followed the same approach.)

 

[Ring 6]

By the way, while we are on the topic of the scheme, it seemed to me that we took a unique approach to defending their short pass, pick play, and WR screen game.
At least at times, we did the following:

Corner was aligned AT LEAST 2 yards outside the widest receiver.
Another DB was inside of the widest receiver and a 3rd DB was on the slot.
It looked like this was designed to bracket one or the other, but keep the outside corner on whoever comes outisde (negating the pick on the slot receivers coverage).
I have not seen this used before, and it looked very innovative.
I think it was part of the 'F the run' strategy because it really required taking an extra defender to devote to the passing game.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, if you look back to the original post about the Giants/Bills game, it actually WAS about giving them extra yardage:



That sounds to me like a nifty little con game where you let the mark win just enough to keep him playing. (Note that I'm not saying this Sunday's game followed the same approach.)

I could be wrong, but I don't think that is a quote, I think that is the posters version of what he remembers.
If he actually told them to let him 'wiggle free' and gain more yards, my opinion of the intelligence of that game plan would be dramatically changed.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

As I understand it, the proposition being advanced is that the Patriots deliberately allowed the Broncos to wrack up running yardage in order to induce them to run more. I seriously doubt this. And, if that was the intent, it didn't really do its job. I would argue that the Broncos threw too much, not too little.

Even with all the success they had running all night, they went away from it on virtually all the plays that mattered -- third downs. They had 20 third down plays. They tried to pass on 18 of them. They only ran on two of them, and one of those two was third and forever, into the win, where they ran a draw to get into better kicking shape. In Of those 18 pass plays, they had one penalty, Manning dropped the ball while rolling out once, and they got one first down by penalty. Other than that, they failed to convert 8 times. Some of these were third and short. I other words, despite the success they were having running, when it mattered, they didn't run to try to keep the chains moving --ever.

If the Patriots were hoping the Broncos would stay away from having Manning try to use his arm, and attempted to induce it by running, that was a horrible strategy. Manning putting up 36 attempts when his team was averaging 6 yards per carry was, I would argue, the reason why the Patriots won not why they lost.

I do think it's clearly the case that the Patriots decided to defense the pass at the expense of the run. But I think that's different from the question being asked in this thread -- whether they were trying to trick the Broncos into running more than they should have. I think the Patriots just made their decision about where their strengths are as a team without Wilfork or Kelly, and the story of the game was not that the Broncos tried to run too much but too little.

 

[Ring 6]

As I understand it, the proposition being advanced is that the Patriots deliberately allowed the Broncos to wrack up running yardage in order to induce them to run more. I seriously doubt this. And, if that was the intent, it didn't really do its job. I would argue that the Broncos threw too much, not too little.

Even with all the success they had running all night, they went away from it on virtually all the plays that mattered -- third downs. They had 20 third down plays. They tried to pass on 18 of them. They only ran on two of them, and one of those two was third and forever, into the win, where they ran a draw to get into better kicking shape. In Of those 18 pass plays, they had one penalty, Manning dropped the ball while rolling out once, and they got one first down by penalty. Other than that, they failed to convert 8 times. Some of these were third and short. I other words, despite the success they were having running, when it mattered, they didn't run to try to keep the chains moving --ever.

If the Patriots were hoping the Broncos would stay away from having Manning try to use his arm, and attempted to induce it by running, that was a horrible strategy. Manning putting up 36 attempts when his team was averaging 6 yards per carry was, I would argue, the reason why the Patriots won not why they lost.

I do think it's clearly the case that the Patriots decided to defense the pass at the expense of the run. But I think that's different from the question being asked in this thread -- whether they were trying to trick the Broncos into running more than they should have. I think the Patriots just made their decision about where their strengths are as a team without Wilfork or Kelly, and the story of the game was not that the Broncos tried to run too much but too little.

I think it is very clear, they sold out to stop the pass, and were willing to take their chances defending the run with 6 in the box.
I am sure they would have preferred that the Broncos throw into that.

The choices (admittedly very simplisticly) are:

1) Play the pass so they pass against a strength or run against a weakness
2) Play the run so they pass against a weakness or run against a strength
3) Play vanilla

Almost every defensive game plan involves some of all 3.
This one only included #1.

 

[Tunescribe]

They only scored enough points to win due to turnovers.
Eliminate the D TD and the TD that started at the +8 and they scored 17 points.

Yes, assuming the Pats defense would otherwise have stopped them from scoring with a longer field. A big "if."

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, assuming the Pats defense would otherwise have stopped them from scoring with a longer field. A big "if."

Not really, considering they did all day.
A longer field that zero and 8 yards?
Considering what they did with all their other drives (which was 14 points in 12 drives) thinking they would score is the bigger IF.
Lets give them credit for the 1.1 points per drive they averaged on all of those. Still a dominant defensive game.

 

[patfanken]

This is a great topic. Kudos to sup for going back into the history book to show the inspiration for the scheme that we saw on Sunday. Kudos to Andy for taking the next step and breaking down the scheme even further.

However like most things, they are not just black and white. BB did what BB does in every game. He tries to eliminate a teams strength and direct their offense into a predictable path of HIS choosing. It doesn't always work because of he might not have the talent to produce the scheme or poor execution might make the defense break down.

Now that I've had a few days to think about it, BB simply did what he had to do, in order to attempt to control the best high powered short to intermediate passing offense in the league this year. One that was producing at historic levels for most of the year..

Now I'm sure the plan wasn't to have the Bronco's run for over 260 yds. I'm sure BB would have been much happier with 160. This isn't a bad run defense. They showed it vs an excellent Panther running attack, holding the RB's to under 50 yds for the game. So we know that the Pats CAN defend the run when its a priority. And I'm sure he will work this week to improve the execution.

But that being said, it is clear that the goal of the defense was to stop a passing game that hadn't been stopped this season....and they accomplished it in spades. They did it by squeezing the mid and underneath areas of the field with often 5 defender, either playing combination zones or man to man. They did it by daring Manning to throw it deep, but also letting him know he'd be throwing deep into 2 deep safety coverage. Not generally a wise thing to do.

So Manning was left with one of 3 options. Throw into those 2 deep safeties. Try to squeeze the ball into the 5 across underneath coverage, or run into what often amounted to a 6 man box. The wind certainly helped the Pats plan when the Bronco's had to play into it. But it wasn't the main reason the defense was so effective.

Even in Manning's best drive of the night (the game tying drive) he had to make 3 literally PERFECT throws and had 2 great catches. plus 2 penalties in order to score. Execution had to be perfect, and that puts a lot of pressure on an offense. Pressure that this offense hadn't seen this year.

BTW- this defense was very similar to what Rex Ryan did to the Pats in that AFC playoff game in the 2010 season (also known as the 2nd biggest win in Jets franchise history. ) It can be very effective if you aren't ready for it.....and that's a problem.

The Pats have shown the rest of the league a solid blueprint in attacking the prolific Denver offense. Teams with more talented front 7's will control the run better (in the 130-160 range). But the bad part is that Denver is going to be much more prepared for this scheme after they have seen it a few times. Don't forget that in the 4 games AFTER that playoff loss, the Pats never failed to score at least 30 points against Rex, and that streak continued until this year when we had those obvious offensive problems of no Gronk, Amendola, and new rookie WR's

So should we meet again, I'm sure the Pats will do something similar to try and stifle that great short, move the chains passing game the Broncos have. I'm sure the Pats will have a few tricks up their sleeves to do better with the run game. However I expect the Broncos will do better as well now that they know what to expect and should see it a few more times the rest of the season.

What the Pats will do the "next time vs Denver" is going to be a great football discussion in January. I look forward to it. I'm already game planning.

 

[PP2]

I also appreciate that a coach who's renowned for halftime adjustments chose to stick with the exact defensive gameplan that yielded a 24-0 halftime deficit, recognizing that the plan was fundamentally sound.

It wasn't the defense that yielded that as much as it was the three turnovers by the offense (e.g., Ridley et al).

 

[Absurdly Metro]

Re: BB's gameplan defeated Manning

they did get us on a screen on a 3rd and 23 or something.

 

[Kdo5]

Re: BB's gameplan defeated Manning

they did get us on a screen on a 3rd and 23 or something.

I sometimes find myself preferring 3rd & 8 rather than 3rd & 20. I don't know what it is with this defense about third and long.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

It wasn't the defense that yielded that as much as it was the three turnovers by the offense (e.g., Ridley et al).

Exactly, they scored directly off one TO, returned another to the 10 yard line, and the 3rd they only had to go like 40 yards.

For all the yards rushing, they were contained on the ground when it mattered most and without the TOs the D would have kept them out of the end zone in the half, IMO.

 

[dales804]

Re: BB's gameplan defeated Manning

they did get us on a screen on a 3rd and 23 or something.

Somehow this seems to happen in games every week. 3rd & 15+ shouldn't the defense be looking for a screen or draw like 75% of the time? Just watch the RB and go where he goes. That conversion killed me.

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: BB's gameplan defeated Manning

they did get us on a screen on a 3rd and 23 or something.

This defense absolutely, positively cannot stop RB screens. By my count, every single one tried against them this season on third and (very) long has gone for a first down.